The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage

from the whether-or-not-it-had-an-impact dept

As I stated in my initial post about Aaron Swartz's death, I don't think it's fair to "blame" the DOJ or others on Aaron's suicide -- just as I don't think it's fair to blame anyone's suicide on a third party, no matter how horrible their actions. That said, the DOJ's actions in this case were quite clearly horrible, and since the case will now never go forward, it seems imperative to highlight just how badly the DOJ acted in this case.

Here is where we need a better sense of justice, and shame. For the outrageousness in this story is not just Aaron. It is also the absurdity of the prosecutor’s behavior. From the beginning, the government worked as hard as it could to characterize what Aaron did in the most extreme and absurd way. The “property” Aaron had “stolen,” we were told, was worth “millions of dollars” — with the hint, and then the suggestion, that his aim must have been to profit from his crime. But anyone who says that there is money to be made in a stash of ACADEMIC ARTICLES is either an idiot or a liar. It was clear what this was not, yet our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed.

Aaron had literally done nothing in his life “to make money.” He was fortunate Reddit turned out as it did, but from his work building the RSS standard, to his work architecting Creative Commons, to his work liberating public records, to his work building a free public library, to his work supporting Change Congress/FixCongressFirst/Rootstrikers, and then Demand Progress, Aaron was always and only working for (at least his conception of) the public good. He was brilliant, and funny. A kid genius. A soul, a conscience, the source of a question I have asked myself a million times: What would Aaron think? That person is gone today, driven to the edge by what a decent society would only call bullying. I get wrong. But I also get proportionality. And if you don’t get both, you don’t deserve to have the power of the United States government behind you.

Lessig made it clear that the feds sought to get Aaron to agree to a plea deal, in which he'd plead guilty to some aspect of the charges against him, in exchange for letting him off on the more serious charges. Aaron did an amazing thing and refused, believing that he had not done anything wrong:

In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.

And, for those who don't think that pushing back against the feds is an amazing thing, you have no clue how much pressure the federal government can put on you when it wants you to plead guilty. Two years ago I wrote about a documentary called Better This World, which is about an entirely different subject, but really opened my eyes to the way the feds handle some of these cases. It's not about what's right. It is entirely about them winning, getting the press coverage and "making examples" of people. And they'll go to amazing lengths, and create pressure that you and I can only have nightmares about, to get people to accept bogus "plea" deals, just so they can notch up another "win." It's scary, scary stuff. Fighting back may have been the right thing to do, but must have created a level of stress unimaginable to most people.

The WSJ has provided more details about the hard line that federal prosecutors had taken with Aaron, including last week's demand that he plead guilty to all counts and spend time in jail:

Mr. Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, first discussed a possible plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann last fall. In an interview Sunday, he said he was told at the time that Mr. Swartz would need to plead guilty to every count, and the government would insist on prison time.

Mr. Peters said he spoke to Mr. Heymann again last Wednesday in another attempt to find a compromise. The prosecutor, he said, didn't budge

In exchange for pleading guilty across the board, Heymann apparently promised that they would ask for a shorter sentence, though that's never a guarantee:

The government indicated it might only seek seven years at trial, and was willing to bargain that down to six to eight months in exchange for a guilty plea, a person familiar with the matter said. But Mr. Swartz didn't want to do jail time.

"I think Aaron was frightened and bewildered that they'd taken this incredibly hard line against him," said Mr. Peters, his lawyer. "He didn't want to go to jail. He didn't want to be a felon."

The report also notes that his girlfriend was unaware of any depressive episodes until right after Wednesday's decision by Heymann to refuse to budge on jailtime and a guilty plea on all counts.

As for the details of the case itself, they were absurd -- and it is no wonder that Swartz refused to plead guilty. Back in September, we delved into the ridiculous details of the final indictment -- which upped the felony count, all of which was based on the idea that he had done some sort of massive computer hacking for the sake of some criminal conspiracy. And yet... that was clearly never the case. As Tim Lee detailed, at worst, it appeared that Swartz might possibly be guilty of trespassing. Yes, he went into a computer closet at MIT, but he got access to a network which was open for all, and he downloaded documents that were made available freely to all on that network.

Many people have reasonably pointed to a blog post from Alex Stamos, the CTO of Artemis Internet, who had been brought on as an expert witness on Aaron's behalf. After demonstrating that his reports have been used on behalf of prosecutors in attacks, and pointing out that he's no friend of hackers, Stamos highlights in detail just how completely bogus the charges against Swartz were:

I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail.

The facts:

MIT operates an extraordinarily open network. Very few campus networks offer you a routable public IP address via unauthenticated DHCP and then lack even basic controls to prevent abuse. Very few captured portals on wired networks allow registration by any vistor, nor can they be easily bypassed by just assigning yourself an IP address. In fact, in my 12 years of professional security work I have never seen a network this open.

In the spirit of the MIT ethos, the Institute runs this open, unmonitored and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted as much in an interview Aaron’s attorneys and I conducted in December. MIT is aware of the controls they could put in place to prevent what they consider abuse, such as downloading too many PDFs from one website or utilizing too much bandwidth, but they choose not to.

MIT also chooses not to prompt users of their wireless network with terms of use or a definition of abusive practices.

At the time of Aaron’s actions, the JSTOR website allowed an unlimited number of downloads by anybody on MIT’s 18.x Class-A network. The JSTOR application lacked even the most basic controls to prevent what they might consider abusive behavior, such as CAPTCHAs triggered on multiple downloads, requiring accounts for bulk downloads, or even the ability to pop a box and warn a repeat downloader.

Aaron did not “hack” the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of “hack”. Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them. Aaron did not use parameter tampering, break a CAPTCHA, or do anything more complicated than call a basic command line tool that downloads a file in the same manner as right-clicking and choosing “Save As” from your favorite browser.

Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity, as evidenced by his very verbose .bash_history, his uncleared browser history and lack of any encryption of the laptop he used to download these files. Changing one’s MAC address (which the government inaccurately identified as equivalent to a car’s VIN number) or putting a mailinator email address into a captured portal are not crimes. If they were, you could arrest half of the people who have ever used airport wifi.

The government provided no evidence that these downloads caused a negative effect on JSTOR or MIT, except due to silly overreactions such as turning off all of MIT’s JSTOR access due to downloads from a pretty easily identified user agent.

I cannot speak as to the criminal implications of accessing an unlocked closet on an open campus, one which was also used to store personal effects by a homeless man. I would note that trespassing charges were dropped against Aaron and were not part of the Federal case.

In short, Aaron Swartz was not the super hacker breathlessly described in the Government’s indictment and forensic reports, and his actions did not pose a real danger to JSTOR, MIT or the public. He was an intelligent young man who found a loophole that would allow him to download a lot of documents quickly. This loophole was created intentionally by MIT and JSTOR, and was codified contractually in the piles of paperwork turned over during discovery.

That's from someone who clearly had detailed knowledge about the situation. Other legal experts had come to similar conclusions after the original indictment came out. Way back when, we had pointed to an article by Max Kennerly in which he looked closely at the indictment and was left confused as to how it got as far as it did. Kennerly has since updated his post (both after the new indictment and again over the weekend, in which he notes that Stamos' post suggest that his own original analysis didn't even go far enough after discovering the details). Kennerly looked at how the case really revolved around whether or not Swartz's activities violated the terms of service, but given the details of the case, combined with Stamos' comments and the fact that (since Swartz was charged) multiple courts have ruled that a mere terms of service violation is not a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), this case seemed to have absolutely nothing legitimate.

Given the disclosures by Swartz's expert, Alex Stamos, which are linked at the beginning of this post, it seems that Swartz had a strong argument that he did indeed have "authorization." As Stamos says, at the time of Swartz's downloads, "the JSTOR website allowed an unlimited number of downloads by anybody on MIT’s 18.x Class-A network" and "Aaron did not use parameter tampering, break a CAPTCHA, or do anything more complicated than call a basic command line tool that downloads a file in the same manner as right-clicking and choosing 'Save As' from your favorite browser."

Thus, all Swartz did was write a script to find and download the files. As a factual matter, that may have been "authorization," rendering it lawful everywhere. Even if the script was "exceeding authorization," if the First Circuit had adopted the same rule as the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, then Swartz would likely have been not guilty as a matter of law. All of which further shows why this prosecution should not have been brought in the first place; the prosecutor is supposed to exercise their judgment to do justice.

Separately, it has been pointed out numerous times that the only real party who had any reasonable claim to "harm" was JSTOR, and it had said from early on that it had settled its issue with Swartz when he agreed to turn over his hard drive with everything he'd downloaded. Now, a bit more has come out, as apparently JSTOR itself asked federal prosecutors to drop the case:

Elliot Peters, Swartz's California-based defense attorney and a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the case "was horribly overblown" because Swartz had "the right" to download from JSTOR, a subscription service used by MIT that offers digitized copies of articles from more than 1,000 academic journals.

Peters said even the company took the stand that the computer crimes section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston had overreached in seeking prison time for Swartz and insisting , two days before his suicide , that he plead guilty to all 13 felony counts. Peters said JSTOR's attorney, Mary Jo White , the former top federal prosecutor in Manhattan , had called Stephen Heymann, the lead Boston prosecutor in the case.

"She asked that they not pursue the case," Peters said.

So even the supposedly "harmed" party didn't want the case to go forward. And yet, Stephen Heymann kept pushing.

The case is now gone, so we'll never see how a judge rules on it. We can hope that, given everything above, a judge would have clearly seen what a joke the case was, and dismissed it. But, you never know how judges will rule, and especially when they're not very technically savvy, they'll give a ridiculous amount of deference to federal prosecutors, merely because of their position. But the ridiculousness of the case should be pointed out over and over again to remind everyone of the problems we get when the federal government gets too powerful, and knows that it can use that power against someone it doesn't like.

Whether or not the impending trial contributed to Swartz's death, one thing is undeniable: the case itself was a complete farce, and that should not be forgotten. One hopes that, among other things, one of the legacies of Swartz's death may be to fix broken laws that allowed this prosecution to move forward, and to figure out a way to dial back the aggressiveness with which federal prosecutors take on cases these days.

Re:

I don't see how accepting being a 'felon' is a compromise. Besides the stigma that would be permanently attached to him for it, he would also be restricted permanently where he travels as some countries don't even let convicted felons enter. (who can get a passport after time+parole ends)

It would have been more of a compromise to ask for a pinky finger than ask to accept being a felon.

Re:

Re:

You have no idea how difficult the life of a felon truly is...

In the US, we have 2.2 million people considered feelings thanks mainly to our drug war.

You have no access to public education, public funding, public housing, our anything else for ten years. You pay your jailor when you're out on parole and your options for jobs are slim and none when you get out. Communities are torn up to make you an outcast. And to add insult to injury, you can be caucased outside of your place of residency so that when you vote, you have less of a voice in politics than you could imagine.

Felonies are a big deal and we have states and corporations that are empowered to use their powers topunish instead of their own common sense to what's right.

Re:

Interesting concept. How do you charge and prosecute the DOJ for violating a federal law when their expressed purpose is to handle the prosecutions for violations of federal law? That would seem to be very difficult to do. However that started me thinking? Are there any state laws in the states involved related to cyberbullying? If so, maybe a state prosecutor could possibly file a suit for violating the state law concerning cyberbullying against the members of the prosecution.

Re: Re:

Prosecutors do NOT charge other prosecutors. At most, a sort of "gentleman's agreement" will ostracize the offending prosecutor - but that is so rare you almost never see it - just hear about it having happened to someone else.

Re: Re: Re:

Right. Just like the way cops don't arrest other cops EXCEPT in cases where the actions so egregious (such as a cop shooting an unarmed kid or something) where either the public outcry is large or has the potential to be very large and it threatens to undermine the integrity of the entire department. I believe this is shaping up to be one of those such situations.

Re:

Furthemore, maybe state legislatures could introduce their own legislation in the form of a Federal Accounablility Act that would allow states to hold federal officials accountable when they violate the law against the citizens of their state.

Re: Re:

Yeah, I'm sure the government would have no problem at all agreeing to a bill/act that would open up the possibility of them actually being held accountable, on a personal level, for the abuses of the legal system and laws. /s

It's a nice idea, but sadly hopelessly naive, and something that the government would never allow to come to pass.

Re: Re: Re:

Many states have passed legalize marijuana laws contrary to federal statute. State legislatures could pass somethng like this as well. State laws are handled by a completely different system than the federal ones are. That is why this could work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This wouldn't be governing how the federal government works. This would be a state law that would allow a state prosecutor to file criminal charges against the individuals involved for misconduct that violates the provisions of their state. It would have nothing to do with the federal government or federal court system. It would be a purely statutory matter.

Re: Re: Re:

And the federal government doesn't have to "agree" with it. They don't have any say in the matter of what state law is as long as it isn't doesn't violate the constitution. And how exactly does a law that simply says that the federal government has to obey it's own laws violate a the US Constitution?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As I said above, it wouldn't be forcing the federal government to do anything. It would be a purely statutory matter that would allow a state prosecutor to pursue the INDIVIDUALS resposible for violating the laws of that state.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And for that matter, most of what is in the constitution states what the FEDERAL government is allowed to do and not allowed to do. There is very little stating what STATES are allowed to do or not to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Logically no, but as the whole wikileaks thing demonstrated, just because something is publicly available and known, it does not keep the government from trying to treat the information as still classified.

Or to put it another way, it doesn't matter how public the information is, if it's not allowed to be presented in a court case.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Still the judge in the case decides what is and isn't admissible in his court, and in this case that would be a statutory court judge not a federal one so the federal government can request it all they want but if the judge allows it to be introduced the feds can't really do much about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What we need is...

That may have made more sense back way back when, but now the government can shoot you from miles away with pinpoint precision using satellite images and other surveillance to track your exact location. You won't even know what hit you. What's your wimpy pistol going to do against billions of dollars of armament and technology?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What we need is...

You know, you people are just full of it. If our government was so invincible, please explain why our military, despite all its technological advances, couldn't defeat the Vietnamese nor the Taliban? Yeah, we can stand toe-to-toe with anyone in conventional warfare, but where it concerns the Second Amendment, we're talking about some-odd 100 MILLION gun-owners who'd be engaged in guerilla warfare. And the fact that military has tanks, drones and jets is meaningless in such a scenario. They can't ride in those vehicles forever (look up the ghetto uprising). Air strikes and bombs alone are insufficient to win such a war -- they'd need manpower. MASSIVE manpower, which they lack. There'd be such low morale and so much internal friction, much of them would join the resistance. Remember, they swore an oath to defend and protect the CONSTITUTION from enemies both foreign and domestic, not to protect the government from the people.

Finally, with regards to what Jay said: "Also, how comfortable are you in killing American soldiers who may just be following orders?" The Nazis also were "just following orders." Following orders doesn't justify actions, particularly ones which bring harm upon Americans. If certain soldiers were to turn their gun against her own countrymen, what does that make them? Traitors.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What we need is...

No. The second amendment was about militias rising up to protect the American government.

A militia came up to protect Washington, which was regulated by each state. It's quite clear that the Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army because they knew that would be a form of imperialism. It's why the army WA to be regulated every two years and the power of war given to Congress, which represents the people.

It's not there so you can amass a small fortune while tragedy happens in a misguided effort to "follow the Constitution"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What we need is...

The term "militia" didn't have the same meaning when the Bill of Rights was written as the common conception that the term has today. In that day the term referred to the entire body of EVERYONE (aka the PUBLIC) capable of keeping and bearing arms not an organized government bodies like the US Armed Forces or the state National Guards.

Re: Re: What we need is...

' why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.”'
the US government and US law enforcement in particular, refuse to accept that they are often very wrong (more often than not on so many occasions nowadays!) and are also supposedly governed by the same law as ordinary people, not above it!

'a judge would have clearly seen what a joke the case was'

just as in the cases of Mega, of dajaz1 and others, but like the articles says, the main thing for the government is not applying the law but winning the case, putting someone in jail and ruining (in this case taking) as many lives, needlessly, as possible!! Heymann needs to be sacked and never employed again, at least in any sort of legal position. i bet, however, the opposite happens and he gets a massive bonus and promotion!! and as for any feeling of guilt? it ain't gonna happen!!!

Why a felon

Make no mistake about it - this was done on purpose. I am sure the DOJ did not anticipate suicide, but it matters little to me. What they need, what they want, is an example, and they got what they wanted in spades.

The government, the banks, and the corporate interests behind this are attempting to prevent the breakdown of a system that allows them a lot of control over information while not technically violating any free speech rights.

Banks and their corporate clients control information through the use of the monetary system. Information is distributed through a handful of corporations who are able to dominate the industry because of their credit. Large corporations do not have to earn the money they spend. They have great credit, which allows them to get the bulk of new money created in any given economy through the partial reserve lending system. No matter how much you can raise online, they can simply borrow a hundred times that amount and bury you.

That is the way the system is designed. It is designed that way from the ground up specifically for that purpose.

This is not an accident, nor is it a conspiracy theory to merely relate how the system works, or why it is necessary to squelch the objections of Aaron Swartz and those of us who agree with his philosophy of open access to information.

Re: Why a felon

This, not incidentally, is why the legacy business model is necessary to them. Their credit is based on guaranteed profits through the use of government power to squelch competition and ensure copyright holders (and patent holders, though patent is not involved in this case) make profits.

Banks love to lend money at interest to sure things. They are not quite as keen to lend to innovate.

This, in turn, is why innovation is far more expensive than it truly needs to be. Large corporations spend the money specifically for their own profit. Banks lend the bulk of this money. More and more dollars then chase after a very limited pool of innovators, thus swelling the cost, thus increasing the need for corporations to tighten IP further in order to ensure profits in order to pay off their loans.

It's similar in its own way to the housing bubble. We already had one tech related bubble. We could easily have more.

We do not have a free market. That, ultimately, is the problem. Those in control of it are not keen on letting it go.

"When 22-year-old programmer Aaron Swartz decided last fall to help an open-government activist amass a public and free copy of millions of federal court records . . . the U.S. court system told the feds he’d pilfered approximately 18 million pages of documents worth $1.5 million dollars . . . the Government Printing Office abruptly shut down the free trial and reported to the FBI that PACER was “compromised,” the FBI file reveals . . . The investigation was closed on April 20."

Copying legal documents are illegal? Copying scientific articles are illegal? Next you'll be telling copying television shows is illegal too!

One is from Orin Kerr (Professor of Law, George Washington Uni) via The Volokh Conspiracy with a very good, consise, and unbiased analysis of the actual law that your DoJ charged Aaron with. Orin plans to do a post on the discretion and judgement of whether what the DoJ did was correct or not soon. I look forward to reading that one, especially from someone who lives and breathes the weirdness that is the USA Computer Fraud and other cybercrime statutes.

The other one is from Scott H. Greenfield at Simple Justice who in a long post states why it's not just Aaron that received this harsh, overreaching myopic and daunting treatment from the government but hundred, ney thousands of poor individuals who still are too. Scott ends it with a call out to all:

[If] you want to honor his memory, perhaps you might want to put all those brilliant minds to use changing the system that drove Swartz to take his own life. It's still here, and it's still just as bad as it was in Swartz's case. And it will continue to be, even as you move back to your more pleasant pursuits.

But you can no longer pretend to be surprised about what the government does to people. It happened to Aaron Swartz, and you hated it. And it will continue to happen, as it happened before Swartz was caught in its web. What now?[emphasis added and required]

Re:

One is from Orin Kerr (Professor of Law, George Washington Uni) via The Volokh Conspiracy with a very good, consise, and unbiased analysis of the actual law that your DoJ charged Aaron with. Orin plans to do a post on the discretion and judgement of whether what the DoJ did was correct or not soon. I look forward to reading that one, especially from someone who lives and breathes the weirdness that is the USA Computer Fraud and other cybercrime statutes.

While much of Kerr's post is good, I have a few problems with it, including his claim that Swartz planned to release the documents. That's conjecture and was never proven at all. Swartz also did a ton of research on large data sets, and it is entirely possible he planned to use the information for his research, rather than to release it.

Re: Re:

Absolutely agree, though it is based on what he has previously done in other similar situations (PACER etc) though that doesn't mitigate that it still is conjecture on Kerr's behalf.

I am going to wait until the 2nd post (that hopefully is soon) before I pass judgement on Kerr's conjecture though since he has only pulled what was really on the indictment with media reports of events at the time and applied them to the post. Knowing Kerr it will be highly illuminating, most likely add in what Stamos found in his forensic examination (that's an eye opening report that normally would never reach the light of day except for the fact that the whole case now is moot).

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

You sure that wasn't the huge file that Greg Maxwell uploaded that was of 18,592 scientific publications from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (UK).

It was in direct protest at Aaron's indictment, and the papers were all in the public domain which basically made JSTOR re-evaluate it's whole system of charging for papers that the public own already - no matter the CYA press release that JSTOR gave (There was NO sweat of the brow in JSTOR's actions of holding the papers that were PD and they had no intention of ever releasing them before the Maxwell incident).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Kerr's comments are hopelessly simplistic, and taken at face value would subject everyone to decades in prison every time they misrepresented their email address to obtain access to a public WiFi.

On wire fraud, for example, Kerr completely ignores the hardest part: proving intent to defraud. As the Department of Justice’s own Attorney Manual notes, most courts interpret “defraud” as meaning “a scheme to defraud another out of money.” That doesn't even arguably cover what Swartz did.

On computer fraud, he argues unauthorized access is established because "this is a case of circumventing code-based restrictions by circumventing identification restrictions." The same is true every single time you say your birthday is "January 1, 1900" to get into a newspaper's website, or enter "asdf" as your name on a public WiFi.

Tellingly, Kerr doesn't even mention the huge circuit split developing over the meaning of "authorization" — he just brushes it all aside. Perhaps he should have read my post.

Re: Re:

Yes it's simplistic, and placing 'the law' and 'discretion/judgement' in two different posts was probably a mistake (especially with all the criticism he had gotten when I last read it)

Though that was the whole point as I see it with the post to show the law 'as read' was correctly applied to the charges brought against Aaron. Whether the charges were warranted or would of withstood scrutiny in court is now sadly something for only the media and academia to ponder.

I agree with you about defraud being pecuniary only (in the majority of cases) and most definitely agree with the problematic and ambiguous wording of the CA though again in the context of what Kerr was trying to put across in this first post that's irrelevant though highly likely it will be in the second post. Especially when you consider Kerr has been a highly vocal critic of them both.

As for the authorisation split I wasn't aware of that myself, though your circuits and their different jurisdictions in the same country to myself, a foreigner, are a strange entity at the best of times.

Don't blame the prosecutors

I mean, they had to do something with all the free time they have not prosecuting the bankers who crashed the economy and were laundering the drug cartel's money. Putting marajuana users in prison only fills a few hours a day. You need to invent crimes for the rest.

Re: Please sign this

Better luck getting a death star built.

I finally realized this morning while listening to the radio and the DJ's told the story of the petition to build a death star and how many ppl signed it that we are totally fucked in any aspect that requires citizens to be diligent in protecting their freedoms.

F'in petition to build a death star and it got the required signatures. Really Amerika?

Re: Re: Please sign this

Violation of rights under color of authority

The federal prosecutor in this case should be charged with, and tried, for prosecutorial misconduct, and violating Swartz's rights under the color of authority. This behavior is just so egregious that to let it stand would be an affront to all law-abiding citizens, and those who we allow to represent us in a law-enforcement capacity. In my opinion, his actions are nothing short of felonious, and should be treated as such!

Re:

Entertainment Industry

Who do you think you're kidding? There is no part of the various industries that collect and distribute "content" that is not connected directly to the other through the use of copyright law. What happens to one happens to all, and you can bet that the reason for this prosecution is that powerful elements from somewhere in the midst of these industries pushed for this prosecution or policies that led to it.

In the meantime, the actual "victims" had no public interest in pressing the issue.

The punishment that he was facing was enough to push many over the edge.

The fact that the charges are very trumped I can say yes the DOJ is to blame.

Even if he was going to win it should be illegal to stack up a bullshit case that has the potential to ruin someones life completely.

I would say otherwise if their case was actually legit. In that case I would have said it was Aaron Swartz that brought it on himself. That is not the case though now is it.

Do you think he would have killed himself if he was facing 1 to 3 with a possibility of being out in little as 6 months? Or even better with a time of 1 to 3 it's very possible he would have had a plea deal of probation.

My crimes dealt 2 to 5 and I was let off on probation. What I did was worse I was a junkie and played doctor one too many times.
Aaron Swartz on the other hand was leeching information THAT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING BEEN OPEN TO EVERYONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

He was not hacking the government.
He was not hacking banks and stealing money.
He was not hacking companies stealing trade secrets.
He was not hacking personal computers of anyone.

The information was there but it was not open in the sense you could go find it on Google.
If he did not take it by automation I doubt we would be in this mess right now.

His crime was wanting efficiency and do you blame him? How in the fuck can we ever evolve if we start locking all our information up ffs..

Re:

If he did not take it by automation I doubt we would be in this mess right now.

His crime was wanting efficiency and do you blame him?

Good point. If he had gotten a hundred people to use their web browsers to do this, there would have been no issue at all. But using a script to do exactly the same thing means 35 years in prison? Holy hell.

Re: Six Months

Re: Re: Six Months

There is such a thing in the world as being mistaken. For example, sorting through dozens of posts on the same topic to find the various plea bargains could be confusing.

It is not, however, difficult to distinguish between violating a terms of service agreement and hacking into a network. Six months or six centuries, the government is lying and in the process of harassing a law abiding citizen has cost us the life of a brilliant young computer scientists and human rights activist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ok so you didn't make it up yourself. You got it from the mouth of those responsible. Sure they claim NOW that they offered 6 months to him. Can you find any record of that offer being made from BEFORE his death?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are such a shameless liar Masnick. His own attorney has said he was offered six months:

You are correct. I misread the statements from earlier. His lawyer does indicate that they were offered 6 months. I apologize for misreading.

That said, if you don't think you've done anything wrong -- six months in federal prison PLUS multiple felonies on your record is hardly appealing.

Besides, the details out there suggest that since he refused to plead guilty to the felony charges, they had indicated to him that they would push for many years in prison -- thus, once he had made the decision not to accept a felony plea bargain, he was indeed facing years in prison.

Well this seems to prove that Theresa May got it right - for once

On 16 October 2012, Home Secretary Theresa May announced to the House of Commons that the extradition [of Gary McKinnon] had been blocked, saying that "Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights."
So the British goverment had already recognised that the pressure generated by the US justice system creates a significant suicide risk.

Re: Re: Just a guess but...

It could have been as simple as 'Because I said so'. He had the government after him, and the normal rules kinda disappear at that point.

Remember, they were trying to charge him with over a dozen felonies, and even had the secret service involved; I don't think it would be that hard to convince a judge that the case was serious enough to ban those involved from discussing it.

Re: Just a guess but...

My guess is that it's total bullshit from Lessig. There's been no gag order issued by the judge. This is just some sort of twisted fantasy to somehow, desperately implicate the government. And where were the heroes from EFF, CDT, PK and ACLU? Why didn't Techdirt organize a defense fund? And where was Lessig himself for that matter? He's a law professor at Harvard for Christ' sake. He taught at Stanford and is on the board of Creative Commons (Swartz's organization) and Center for Internet and Society. He was the kid's friend, why wasn't he representing him pro bono?

I'm glad usually on the other side of the debate. Every time someone on your side gets in deep shit, their so-called friends and supporters don't lift a finger, much less write a check. What tiny amount of respect I may have had for any of you people has evaporated. You didn't do shit for the Ninjavideo crew, nor anyone else. All you do is scream into the echo chamber. Pretty pathetic.

Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Re: Re: Just a guess but...

So now it's everyone else's fault that he was slapped with a bunch of bogus, over-reaching charges? You almost sound a bit defensive there. You come across as someone who would've cheered at the charges brought against Swartz. Having a moral crisis now?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Actually, Swartz was (at some point) worth millions. The Ninjavideo defendants took in over $500,000 and even the kid from the UK made over $250k. Seems like it'd be prudent for these folks to put away some cash to have a reserve to defend themselves. But none of that really matters. Litigation can be expensive. Yet I don't see the legal titans from the apologist side stepping up. I don't see Techdirt or any of you organizing defense funds or cutting checks? Talk is cheap fellas. And that's all I ever see from you... talk, You had millions of people signing petitions and sending emails over SOPA. How about harnessing them and asking each to send a measly dollar? My theory isn't that the charges put Swartz over the edge, more likely the abandonment by his so-called friends and supporters did. Anyone can do six months in Club Fed. But not everyone can deal with being abandoned by people who professed to care about them. My side may not always be right, but we never leave our own to bleed out on the battlefield. And it has nothing to do with money. Anyone of the tech execs from the companies opposing SOPA could write a six figure (or larger) check. EFF, CDT, PK, Frees Press, ACLU all have tons of outstanding lawyers. Where the hell were they. Why didn't all the tech websites (like Techdirt) solicit donations? So blame the US Attorney all you like, but it is undeniable that Swartz's constituents and supporters didn't do jack shit for him.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

you despicable low-life scumbag, yes, YOU, anonymous @5:51 pm...

1. the KID had little/no money left 'cause HE DONATED most of it to inertnet causes and actions, you useless human-shaped pile of shit... probably gave away more than you will earn in your greedy, grasping pathetic life...

2. he had more principles, ethics, and bravery in ONE neuron than you have in your whole family...

3. it is not only HIS fault for getting trumped up charges
by the gummint behemoth, but it is then OURS for not ponying up enough cash to bribe the whole system to reverse the injustice ? ? ?
sure, we peons can outbid the korporate overlords to wrest away control of a corrupted system; you are one gullible piece of authoritarian trash, mister...
(yeah, there is NO way a woman wrote that nasty shit)

the eye of sauron gets turned on ANYONE -even bona fide 'heroes' (sic) like petraeus, et al- and you are going to get fucked over NO MATTER guilt or innocence...

but, guess what, the petraeus's of the world only get caught up if internecine warfare among the puppetmasters breaks out, otherwise, it is the TRUE and BRAVE PATRIOTS like swartz, manning, kirakou, AD INFINITUM who get fucked over by the machine of empire on a daily basis...

i'm old and out of shape, but you better hope we never cross paths, because i'm about sick of authoritarian pieces of trash like you pissing on people who contributed more to society in a short life than you could in a million years...
FOAD

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Such a target-rich environment, where shall I begin?

1. the KID had little/no money left 'cause HE DONATED most of it to inertnet causes and actions, you useless human-shaped pile of shit... probably gave away more than you will earn in your greedy, grasping pathetic life...

So in this kids hour of need, when he was in such despair he took his own life- the recipients of all of that money did what? They turned their fucking backs, that's what. They took his money, they basked in his reflected glory and then didn't lift a fucking finger or give back a single dime when he was in crisis. Who is the useless piece of shit here?

2. he had more principles, ethics, and bravery in ONE neuron than you have in your whole family...

I don't question the first two, but struggle with the bravery assertion. Personally, I believe suicide to be cowardly. But I think he had mental health issues that may have caused him to surrender. As far as me and my family, you don't know me and I doubt you'd entertain anything I said about this.

3. it is not only HIS fault for getting trumped up charges
by the gummint behemoth, but it is then OURS for not ponying up enough cash to bribe the whole system to reverse the injustice ? ? ?
sure, we peons can outbid the korporate overlords to wrest away control of a corrupted system; you are one gullible piece of authoritarian trash, mister...

Based on the facts (facts) it seems that he broke the law and knew it, as attempting to evade identification by the security camera by hiding his face with his bike helmet indicates. I don't know about the scope of the charges, but that's probably a 35 year max sentence was offered to be reduced to six months. And no, I'm not talking about bribes. Any lucid person knows that doesn't happen on the Federal bench. I'm talking about how his so-called friends and followers didn't step up to mount a first class defense. But all you people do is take. You can't even see your way clear to dig in and contribute to one of your own leaders. Just more talk. Utterly shameful and pathetic.

(yeah, there is NO way a woman wrote that nasty shit)

You are doubtlessly one coarse and unappealing woman.

the eye of sauron gets turned on ANYONE -even bona fide 'heroes' (sic) like petraeus, et al- and you are going to get fucked over NO MATTER guilt or innocence...

Wow, nice transition into a Gorehound-esque rant. Meh, Petraeus should have known better. Arrogant like Swartz, thought he was above it. You can't get fucked unless you assume the position.

i'm old and out of shape, but you better hope we never cross paths, because i'm about sick of authoritarian pieces of trash like you pissing on people who contributed more to society in a short life than you could in a million years...
FOAD

Hahahahaha......An aged hippie, pseudo-anarchist is going to get me.

you live in florida ? let's arrange to meet, shithead...

Figures they'd have senior citizen communes down there. I'll pass. I've never been down with the whole bingo and dinner at 4:30 thing. Though I am tempted to see if you are as big a buffoon in person as you are on this board.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Your side? You don't HAVE a side. The other "side" here is a group of organizations and industries who have repeatedly fed hundreds into the lion's maw, ripping off artists and inventors alike so that people who own shares and run banks can make money off of other people's work.

Your "side". pfft Your side doesn't even know that you exist, let along care.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

You might be surprised. I am actually a doer. I believe in copyright and intellectual property. I may talk, but I also back shit up. I engage on any number of issues I find important. So spin whatever fantasy about me that makes you feel better about your own pathetic, self-imposed powerlessness. I'll continue to fight for my beliefs and you can talk softly in your apartment about yours.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Who the hell said that Derpsley? I call you guys out for turning your back on one of your leaders and now it's the fault of the content industry? That's laughable, but if I were in your shoes, I guess I wouldn't want to own my shameful inaction either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Look, I'll be the first to say that the scope of the charges were bullshit. But that's the way the game is played. Something people ought to consider BEFORE they do shit that can put them in harm's way.

But at the end of the day, he was offered six months. He'd end up with five if he behaved and probably spend two in a minimum security (unlocked) facility then he'd go to a pre-release center. So he has a felony conviction, BFD? He was an extraordinarily skilled kid with lots of connections. He's an entrepreneur. It's not like he'd have gotten out and had to look for work at WalMart. Seriously, what is the huge stigma? How would his future been limited? Gun ownership? So what, he doesn't look like he'd know what to do with one. Voting? Well, I think after a time that gets reinstated.

I think Swartz was a typical arrogant kid who didn't realize the kind of trouble he could manage to get into. He was high profile and political. It seems that someone older and more experienced should have been in this kids ear about how shit can go bad fast. It didn't happen and that's a fucking shame.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

So you are fine with government abusing the citizens they are sworn to represent based on what you admit are bullshit charges at the behest of special interests without any accountability for their actions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Look, I'll be the first to say that the scope of the charges were bullshit. But that's the way the game is played.

That you see this as a game is horrendous. This was a human life. Not some game piece.

If you cannot see that, there is a word that describes you. It is sociopath.

Something people ought to consider BEFORE they do shit that can put them in harm's way.

If the charges against him are bullshit, then why would any rational person think doing what he did would put him in harm's way? Either you were lying when you said you thought the charges were bullshit, or you're lying here.

But at the end of the day, he was offered six months.

Six months or 50 years, it doesn't matter when what he did was not wrong.

So he has a felony conviction, BFD?

When what someone has done is not wrong, and the only party with any possible imaginary harm has urged the state to drop the case, taking away any of someone's rights is a big fucking deal. Unless you don't care about someone's rights, which you've made abundantly clear you don't.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Josh, the judicial system has become a game. I didn't turn it in to one, I simply characterize it as I see it. The prosecutors throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. That's why most cases are plea bargained (I think like 95% or more).

Swartz knew what he was doing was illegal. He hid his face from security cameras because he knew his actions were unlawful.

If you don't see the difference between six months and 50 years of incarceration, you are an idiot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Hiding from security cameras isn't an admission of guilt. It an acknoledgement that what he was doing might have consequenses (such as harrassment) or try to be stopped even if it were perfectly legal. That's an awful big leap to say that he knew it was illegal especially when even now it's not certain that what he did was even illegal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

the judicial system has become a game.

No, the judicial system is simply a way of resolving disputes. Disputes between a government and its citizens, or between individual parties. While it should be about finding the truth, the best I can hope for is that it remains civil and fair. It is blindingly obvious that it was neither fair nor civil in this case. But it is not a game - and your characterization of it as such shows that you don't understand that it impacts the lives of real people. This is not abstraction.

Swartz knew what he was doing was illegal. He hid his face from security cameras because he knew his actions were unlawful.

Entering the wiring closet at MIT was illegal, yes. It was trespassing. Trespassing was not charged. As has been pointed out by lawyers and computer security experts, nothing else he did was illegal, and was at worst inconsiderate.

Aaron was extremely intelligent and understood technology and the protocols of the internet at a very fundamental level. If he thought his other actions were illegal, why didn't he cover his tracks? Why didn't he encrypt his laptop? Why did he hack into MIT's network via untraceable (or at least difficult to trace) proxies? All of these were well within his skills.

The fact that the only time he tried to hide himself was when he was trespassing into the wiring closet (and let me reiterate again that this was not charged) is very strong evidence that he didn't think his other actions were illegal.

And I never said there was no difference between 6 months and fifty years. I said that the difference didn't matter - taking away someone's rights for actions which were not wrong is wrong no matter the length of time.

Is the government taking away your right to freedom of speech because you're a lying sack of shit wrong if they only do it for a day?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Re: Re: Just a guess but...

And where were the heroes from EFF, CDT, PK and ACLU? Why didn't Techdirt organize a defense fund?

There was a defense fund which many people contributed to. Your ignorance of it is your problem.

The issue was not the lack of a defense fund, but rather the fact that Swartz was not in a position to call more attention to it. If you don't recognize that judges sometimes take such requests and turn them against defendants, again, that is a problem of ignorance on your end.

And where was Lessig himself for that matter? He's a law professor at Harvard for Christ' sake. He taught at Stanford and is on the board of Creative Commons (Swartz's organization) and Center for Internet and Society. He was the kid's friend, why wasn't he representing him pro bono?

As he clearly stated in his post (which you apparently didn't even read), Lessig did help him pro bono until issues were raised about conflicts of interest. Also, Lessig is not a criminal law litigator.

Also, I would suggest you do some research and understand who actually managed the defense fund that was being raised (contrary to your assertions that it did not exist).

I'm glad usually on the other side of the debate. Every time someone on your side gets in deep shit, their so-called friends and supporters don't lift a finger, much less write a check.

Your ignorance is disgusting and insulting. Many, many, many people reached out to support and help Aaron.

Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Hmmm, you usually link to an article on Techdirt. I can't find any mention of an Aaron Swartz defense fund on Techdirt or record of you appealing to readers for donations or donating yourself. How could that be? You seem to have time for so much other drivel. So why don't you give me a link to the Techdirt announcement of a Swartz defense fund so I can apologize for missing it. I'll be waiting.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Hmmm, you usually link to an article on Techdirt. I can't find any mention of an Aaron Swartz defense fund on Techdirt or record of you appealing to readers for donations or donating yourself. How could that be? You seem to have time for so much other drivel. So why don't you give me a link to the Techdirt announcement of a Swartz defense fund so I can apologize for missing it. I'll be waiting.

I didn't announce it because that's actually NOT the kind of thing we write about on Techdirt. We don't ask people to donate to specific causes. We may ask people to speak out, but donations are a personal decision.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

How is that a evidence from prior to his death? Either show us a public statement from the prosecution stating that it was a 4 or 6 month offer from BEFORE his death or a link where his attorney acknowledges that these were the terms just stop.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Are you stupid or just lazy?

From the Daily Beast, which is linked in the citation I provided you earlier:

“They’re very serious and their job is very serious and they’re very serious about it and this is a very serious matter and this is how it is going to be,” Peters says of the prosecution in the Swartz case. “They made their position very clear. They believed they had to seek prison time and multiple felony convictions in this case.”

The best deal the prosecutors would offer was four months in prison with Swartz pleading guilty to 13 felonies. And they warned Peters that his client had better take it while he still could.

“They told me over and over again that the offer had been on the table,” Peters says. “And any future offer would be less attractive.”

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...

It was you that claimed Peters said that, not me. I have seen articles where the Ortiz's husband claims he was offered him 6 months, but that was AFTER his death and the shit storm started. I have yet to see on quote from before his death where the prosecution stated that they were offering him 6 months. I have also not seen an article where Peters is quoted (or even the reporter says that) Peters said that there was an offer of 4 or 6 months. Peters did apparently say that they told him they would pursue AT LEAST 7 years if it went to trial.

Rage

Yeah. I read this and then spent about 15 minutes raging bitterly and red faced under my breath lest I disturb any of my neighbors in my apartment building, just sick and tired of the apathy at the repeated injustices that are piling up in this country.

Ultimately I am slowly turning into one of those people who no longer blames the government. Ultimately, this nation is failing because people do not care.

This is just too obvious. I'm just sick and tired of a handful of people being the only ones.

Re: Rage

Ultimately I am slowly turning into one of those people who no longer blames the government. Ultimately, this nation is failing because people do not care.

My point exactly. Where were all of you "friends" and admirers when this kid needed help? Specifically Shane, what the fuck did you do? Other than rage bitterly and red faced in virtual silence. More talk, that's all you people do. Which doesn't seem to have helped matters much. You too are one of the people who don't care but have so little self-awareness you're blind to it. Acting concerned is not the equal of actually doing something.

Re: Re: Rage

No one was able to do anything because we do not have control over our government any more.

What I did was oppose it. What you did was support it. Your apparent glee at the outcome speaks volumes about what is wrong with this nation these days. It's not -just- the government. The general population is grossly unethical and immoral.

You and people like you are the problem that needs addressing. What would you suggest I do about you? Not respond? Let your vindictive and petty notion of how the economy and the legal system should run be published unopposed by any other viewpoint?

You wouldn't be here if you didn't know how important what is going on here is.

Re: Re: Re: Rage

No one was able to do anything because we do not have control over our government any more.

Couldn't have created or contributed to a defense fund? Couldn't have organized a rally in front of the courthouse or prosecutor? Couldn't have written a letter to the editor or started a goofy White House petition? Let's face it: You didn't care enough to lift a finger.

What I did was oppose it. What you did was support it. Your apparent glee at the outcome speaks volumes about what is wrong with this nation these days. It's not -just- the government. The general population is grossly unethical and immoral.

You opposed it with some cheap talk. That's pretty weak in my book. And I did not support it. I did nothing, just like you. The difference is Swartz is not one of my heroes or allies.

You and people like you are the problem that needs addressing. What would you suggest I do about you? Not respond? Let your vindictive and petty notion of how the economy and the legal system should run be published unopposed by any other viewpoint?

No keep talking. It seems to make you feel better about not actually doing anything.

You wouldn't be here if you didn't know how important what is going on here is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rage

Again I ask, what exactly is it you think no one is doing? I participated in campaigns set up by Demand Progress.... Does that count? Or is that just talking as well? Because he seemed to want people to "just talk" if that's what you mean.

Or are you just trying to stir up enough outrage to get someone to say something crazy so you can use it against the movement to destroy your self serving business model?

The whole point

We are all painfully aware that this is how the game is played. That is what we object to. It is not appropriate for the government to step in when no harm has been done and when the principles in a disagreement have made peace, and threaten someone until they capitulate in order to make some political point that wealthy and powerful interests want made.

Re: The whole point

I agree with a TINY part of what he said in stating that this is how the game is played. The fact of the matter is that prosecutors are paid to be pitbulls and achieve a conviction at almost any cost just as defense attorneys are paid to find whatever means they can to do what is in the best interest of their client. That is the nature of litigation. However, the place where his arguments fall apart is in that prosecutors are PUBLIC servants who are charged with the task of using DESCRESSION and evaluating the merits of the case before they go down that path which is where there was an obvious failure here.

You may not want to blame the prosecutor, but I think history will. I think Aaron was probably brilliant enough that, in the future, people will look back on this moment as the USA analog to the UK's malicious prosecution of Alan Turing.

Remember Customer Service

If JSTOR and other internet gatekeepers were to design their systems to provide this sort of service, people would not feel the temptation to automate the process to save themselves the wasted time of doing it manually.

Mass searches and downloads represent an advance in technology that enables researchers to sift through the massive amounts of information we now have available.

Swartz did them a favor, and they drove him to suicide for it. That is very typical of the modern financial/informational complex.

Re: Remember Customer Service

If JSTOR and other internet gatekeepers were to design their systems to provide this sort of service, people would not feel the temptation to automate the process to save themselves the wasted time of doing it manually.

Mass searches and downloads represent an advance in technology that enables researchers to sift through the massive amounts of information we now have available.

Swartz did them a favor, and they drove him to suicide for it. That is very typical of the modern financial/informational complex.

So it was JSTOR that drove him to suicide. I thought you said it was the US Attorney.... no wait, the content industry. Shit. Let me know when you re-decide again.

Re: White House Petitions

oh boy

This team is now in Ferguson, somebody is going to get the shaft, and it looks like the cop. Don't know how it went down but it won't matter, Holder already convicted the guy and his cronies will make it happen